Christians, change my mind: the more I think of substitutionary atonement, the less it makes sense.

[sooda]

You're forgetting that if Jesus became Adam then He becomes imperfect and therefore can't be a worthy or pure sacrifice.

Jesus had God for his father and the Immaculate Conception for his mother.. so he was without sin.

 

[nPeace]

I disagree. I don't choose to change my mind... my mind becomes change due to the soundness of an argument or due to the validity of the evidence. It is not a choice on my part.

So you don't make up your mind? This is an interesting idea... and a first I have heard.

If it can be proven that Jesus is the Messiah, then there wouldn't be a need for faith and also He clearly didn't prove to the Jews that they were wrong since many of them remained unconvinced.

This seems to be a new point you raised.
I think people misunderstand what it means to have faith, and they often confuse the expressions made in the Bible.
Did the Bible say the Jews were to have faith that Jesus was the Messiah? No. Nowhere does it say that.

Like I said before: I disagree. I don't choose to change my mind... my mind becomes change due to the soundness of an argument or due to the validity of the evidence. It is not a choice on my part.

So you don't change your mind. I disagree, but... okay.

I'd like to see those scriptures but if Jesus' payment was perfect then it should cover all my sins past, present and future.

Tell me about the two I quoted first.
Please explain why you claim that "if Jesus' payment was perfect then it should cover all my sins past, present and future."

Well I guess that means that we're all screwed since I'm sure all of humanity is guilty of that sin and this scripture also shows that God isn't infinitely loving, merciful or forgiving and also it shows that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a perfect sacrifice that satisfied all the requirements as a perfect mechanism for forgiving all sins, past, present and future. Even Paul disagrees that Jesus' sacrifice is conditional saying that He made "the ultimate sacrifice for all time." Not some time, but all time.

Your ideas are not scripture - nor in line with them, so I don't really see how they relate to what the Bible says.

If Jesus was an actually man that means that we also condemned and imperfect and unworthy of being a pure sacrifice for all sins, which means that His sacrifice couldn't have meant anything.

This is a bit confusing to me, but I will try to put it in perspective.
I think what you are trying to say, is that if Jesus were human, then that makes him imperfect.
This is not scriptural, truth, nor fact. It is obviously your idea though, but we are not discussing your ideas, are we? I thought we were discussing what the Bible says... I hope we can.

Your system holds to that view.

No. My system holds to God's view - not this world's.

Check my response here: if that's the case then Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a perfect sacrifice that satisfied all the requirements as a perfect mechanism for forgiving all sins, past, present and future. Even Paul disagrees that Jesus' sacrifice is conditional saying that He made "the ultimate sacrifice for all time." Not some time, but all time.

Please explain.
Check my response.
Jesus' sacrificial death, allows mankind to come into a relationship with God - to be reconciled to him (conditional), and to have their sins forgiven (conditional). Paul does not disagree with this.

Right, according to the fall we were all already facing a just punishment by having to deal with spiritual and physical death, so why would God make a way of atonement if it's not necessary and we were all getting our just deserts?

One word - Love. It goes beyond what many think love is though.

 

[nPeace]

OK but if Jesus was a human then that means that he would have been imperfect and not capable of being a perfect sacrifice.


Thanks.

Human does not equal imperfect (human != imperfect).
That's a huge mistake to begin with.

 

[Hawkins]

Can Jesus really save anyone? The more I think of the Christian idea of substitutionary atonement the less I'm convinced that Jesus can actually save anyone.

You missed the big picture in the first place. You know what it is if you ever learned some statistics and probabilities about the bell shape normal distribution of human behavior.

Freewill is actually designed against a set of ultimate Law. Law is designed for yet another purpose. By Law and applied to the angels, 1/3 of them will fail with a Final Judgment. This is a norm or standard. In terms of statistics this is an expected outcome when Law is in effect.

Somehow and due various reasons, with the same set of Law applied to humans none of them can pass the same Final Judgment. The bell shape of human behavior somehow shifted to the extent that when Law is used to make a cut, none can survive the Final Judgment.

So in order to even save a single human, he needs to be judged alternatively. In order for a human to be judged in such an alternative way, a justification is needed. God needs to make a self sacrifice which is Jesus Christ.

With Law, 2/3 angels will be saved.
With covenants, less than 1/3 humans will be saved. That's how they are saved through the narrow gate as an expected outcome.

To switch from Law to covenants a justification is needed, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[SaintUriah]

Why did the Lord abandon him
He had with him the Holy Spirit, the strongest character after the Lord
As you know, who made Christianity triumph is the Holy Spirit not army This in itself is a miracle

So Why The Holy Spirit did not wrath Christ's enemies to monkeys or pigs
As he did with the people of Lot and Noah

Why did the Lord and His Spirit give up Christ
Leave the bad guys crucify him as you say

 

[Hawkins]

Why did the Lord abandon him
He had with him the Holy Spirit, the strongest character after the Lord
As you know, who made Christianity triumph is the Holy Spirit not army This in itself is a miracle

So Why The Holy Spirit did not wrath Christ's enemies to monkeys or pigs
As he did with the people of Lot and Noah

Why did the Lord and His Spirit give up Christ
Leave the bad guys crucify him as you say

No one knows for sure what it is yet.
My speculation from my own experience is that, being forsaken is a strong feeling during the process of a human death.
So what Jesus said in the cross mostly stood witness that He did die a human death.

 

[SaintUriah]

No one knows for sure what it is yet.
My speculation from my own experience is that, being forsaken is a strong feeling during the process of a human death.
So what Jesus said in the cross mostly stood witness that He did die a human death.

OK
When he came as a person to Mary's room she scare
She sees angels that he is not like them

I seek refuge in god if you are pious

He said, Do not be afraid, I am the Messenger of your Lord to give you your son
She say How did that happen I've never touched a man

He say We also make you a sign for people

 

[SaintUriah]

No one knows for sure what it is yet.
My speculation from my own experience is that, being forsaken is a strong feeling during the process of a human death.
So what Jesus said in the cross mostly stood witness that He did die a human death.

When Angel of death come to adam says
Adam
Your time is over here. Let's go to the Lord. You must die. The body will not go there
Adam says
I have a family here And things to take care of Take my son shaith He new only 80 years He does not know a wife nor much about the land

When he went to shaith
Shaith says that Take my father He lived a thousand years and He did everything

But i am new in thise world

We must die to go to heaven so God said that Jesus died but not On a cross

 

[Jos]

I cannot change anyone's mind, but I can present some things which may be helpful to you, at least. Please consider this, "Theodicy" - God's Justice.

I'll watch that vid later.

Fallen thinking of mankind is foolishness. To doubt God's plan and/or ability to save, is to remain lost.

It's quite possible that "God's thinking" is actually man's thinking as in man created the whole thing and I'm also not gonna believe something that has too many internal contradictions.

Already you sound like the first great infidel, and say "If ..." (Matthew 4:3 KJB), which is the language of the serpent, to doubt God's word, and God's mercy, justice and love. It is in effect to say, 'I do not believe you to be the person/character you claim to be, God.' It places God as the liar, and you in the place of truth. Very dangerous position to be in, for we all know that mankind (with the exception of Jesus) has lied, and thus what Paul stated is true:

Sorry but I don't believe that BS. I'm not calling anyone a liar and I'm not placing myself in any position of truth, all I'm doing is asking questions. Also I think I may be able to give evidence that Jesus didn't tell the truth.

The message of forgiveness is being preached. All are forgiven in Christ Jesus. Not all accept this. The check has been written in blood, and you must cash it in. Merely holding onto the winning lottery ticket is no good, unless you claim it and deposit it.

Right you acknowledge that Jesus has forgiven me, so if that's the case then I don't need to ask for forgiveness.

Yet, what sins are forgiven?

Rom_3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
The sins which are forgiven are those sins which are "past" when (the very moment) you accept the gift. You must ask for 'forgiveness' for any sins, (if committed; 1 John 2:1), future from that moment, to have them placed under the same blood payment, but this offer does not last forever, and is limited in time (Revelation 14:6-12; Revelation 12:12; James 1:15). Yet that is not the end. Forgiven sin whether past or presently confessed, are merely "covered" by the blood, and not yet "blotted out". That part is soon to come, as seen in the final events of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16 & 23; Daniel & Revelation).

Matthew 18, and many other places show that forgiveness can be revoked during the time of our probation on this earth if merited in God's sight.

The context of forgiveness is in the present tense, and conditional:

Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
1Jn_1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
The blood of Jesus is not a cloak for sin. It is to be the remedy for sin (1 John 3:4). Asking for forgiveness from that time forward, is basically asking God to forgive that you have trampled upon the gift given, Jesus. It hurts the heart of the Father to see when we sin, inspite of having taken the gift in His Son Jesus Christ. It hurts the Son, to see that we have not yet understood the gift given by the Father, and sin yet still.

Think of it like this.

[1] You (we) broke God's Law (Exodus 20:1-17), the Ten Commandments. You (we) are guilty of highest treason against the government and throne of God's love, and the wages for this is death (eternal, oblivion). Jesus then came to pay the ransom with His own (eternal life) in human flesh, to uphold justice and mercy together.

We are forgiven by the blood of Jesus from transgression against the Law of God and against God for those things which are past, before we accepted Jesus.
[2] Jesus died, and yet you (we) have still sinned (transgressed the Law) even after we accepted the offer in the Son. It is for this that we ask forgiveness. We are God's by Creation and now also by Purchase, and therefore are not our own

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. It's either Jesus totally paid for my sins, past, present and future or He didn't and it's conditional, which means it isn't a perfect payment for sin.

In a certain sense true, but that is not the whole story, see above. There is a difference between that which is past and that which is present.

Jesus' payment can't be absolute if it's conditional.

'Hell', in that context, simply means 'the grave', and thus dead. You may see these here, for that:

Others interpret it differently and claim that God gave them that interpretation, and some even claim to have personal experience of hell, so what if you're the one who's wrong?

That is a misunderstanding of how scripture is interpreted. It is not how "you", "I" or "they" interpret. God's word is it's own interpreter (its own dictionary, thesaurus, etc), in other word, it is God who does the interpreting in the text itself, and our job is simply to "Amen" what is written

It sure seems like people are the ones doing the interpreting.

Jesus was not merely man (though He was fully man; Galatians 4:4; 1 Timothy 2:5; Philippians 2:7-8, etc), but was also fully God (Person of the Son) manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and thus His life was not finite, but infinite, eternal as Deity

Can't have it both ways, choose one or the other, it's either He's imperfect or He's not.

The wages of sin is not eternal torture (all who teach that, blaspheme God, whether ignorantly or knowingly). God is "long-suffering" with the wicked, not eternally suffering them. There is a "time" of torment according as the works, but the finality is death (Romans 6:23). Jesus suffered and died. He (in His humanity) would have remained dead forever, except for the fact, in Him was Life (eternal; John 1:4, 5:39; 1 John 1:2). Yet an eternal sacrifice was made, for the Son is to remain eternally a man (of the race of mankind), even though glorified. He will forever retain the scars.

It's not really a sacrifice if His life was eternal. A real sacrifice would mean Him dying forever.

 

[Iymus]

Why? If it's conditional then Jesus didn't perfectly pay for everyone's sins.

1Jn 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
1Jn 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

Well it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Even if considered beneficial to us?

But according to the New Testament Jesus did pay the price for everyone's sins even though He was innocent, so which is it? Is the Old testament or New Testament correct?

The concept or prophecy of a Father sacrificing his only begotten Son was spoken of prior to the Prophet Ezekiel, so meant for a predetermined purpose.

To my knowledge, In the past sons paid for the sins of their fathers. Take the sons of Reuben for example.

Gen 49:3 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Gen 49:4 Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch.

Likewise sons would be rewarded for the accomplishments of there fathers. For example an inheritance, blessings, etc.

Under Christ or fullness of grace and truth, if you sleep with your fathers concubine for example, you alone would pay the price in regards to sin and not your descendants.

At least this is how I perceive it all at this time

 

[Jos]

It is just, because Jesus willingly took our sins upon Himself, and willingly gave us His innocence in return. It was an exchange of record, and of life.

An exchange of record would mean that we also die eternally.

Jesus was guilty of our sins by having voluntarily taken our sins upon Himself. The guilty died. The innocent lived. This is just.

No it's not, since He wasn't actually guilty.

The sinner never gets to go free. The sinner dies on death row by execution for high treason. The only person that walks free is Christ.

That makes no sense since the sinner does actually go free. You guys say that punishment of sin is eternal death yet Jesus only died for a few days so clearly He didn't actually give a full sacrifice and didn't fully pay the price for all sins.

Again, there was no innocent who died. It was the guilty that died.

Jesus wasn't guilty, so the guilty didn't actually die, how many times do I have to say thus before you get it.

I am not, as it is false theology (as commonly defined, see Trent), and incoherent logically. I am one who believes what scripture says of Godhead, in regards the Persons/Beings of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

You claim the Trinity is logically incoherent yet also claim to believe that spending three days dead equates to an eternal death... I don't get it.

This is not true. The guilty can pay for their own sins (Leviticus 16:10; scapegoat is satan), but cannot live afterwards. The penalty for sin is death. If you want to pay this you can. Yet since you have no eternal life in you, you will remain dead forever (2nd death), though you will have paid for your own sins, having rejected the blood of Jesus who died to pay for them instead

I honestly wouldn't mind doing that.

Look around you, do you really doubt that mankind is not fallen? Do you see anything getting better, or rather is it as scripture says, waxing worse and worse.

Claiming that humanity or the world is fallen presupposes that humanity or the world was in a perfect state at one point but I see no reason to believe this. I have every reason to believe that the world was always like this.

That is a confusion of the Two Persons/Beings. Jesus is Deity/God (by nature), but not the Person/Being of the Father, who is Deity/God (by nature). The Person/Being of the Son was separated from the Person/Being of the Father and was truly "alone":

That's logically incoherent.

Sin is not "being". Sin is the "transgression of the Law" (1 John 3:4). Jesus took upon himself the likeness (actuality) of sinful (fallen) flesh, but to have sinful (fallen) flesh is not to be a sinner. (anything else is the teaching of anti-Christ, 2 John 1:7). To be a sinner, one must have transgressed the Law of God. Jesus showed that by the Holy Ghost, it is possible to have fallen flesh and be sinless, and thus by His strength we too can be like He was in the flesh we have.

Noope that's logically incoherent.

 

[Jos]

But what did he really sacrifice? He's an immortal being... If I sacrifice something, then I'm giving something up and thus won't be getting it back. Otherwise it's just a "loan" or whatever.

Exactly! How does three days equate to eternal death? It's not actually a sacrifice if He's gonna back His life.

 

[Jos]

From wiki:
in western Christian theology, describes beliefs that human beings can be reconciled to Godthrough Christ's sacrificial suffering and death.[6] Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus,[7][8] Throughout the centuries, Christians have used different metaphors and given differing explanations of atonement to express how atonement might work. Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor or explanation they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective; however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of humanity have been forgiven.[9] enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation. Within Christianity there are, historically, three[10] or four[11] main theories for how such atonement might work:

• Ransom theory/ Christus Victor (which are different, but generally considered together as Patristic or "classical", to use Gustaf Aulén's nomenclature, theories, it being argued that these were the traditional understandings of the early Church Fathers);
• Satisfaction theory developed by Anselm of Canterbury (called by Aulén the "scholastic" view);
• Moral influence theory, a concept that had been developed by the time of Enlightenment, which Aulén called the "subjective" or "humanistic" view and considered to have been anticipated—as a critique of the satisfaction view—by Peter Abelard.
• Other theories include recapitulation theory, the "shared atonement" theory[12] and scapegoat theory.
• Additional views include the governmental view, penal substitution view, and substitutionary atonement

This is really informative thanks.

 

[Jos]

Jesus had God for his father and the Immaculate Conception for his mother.. so he was without sin.

He was still human which would mean that He was imperfect and thus not worthy of being a perfect sacrifice.

 

[sooda]

He was still human which would mean that He was imperfect and thus not worthy of being a perfect sacrifice.

Jesus inherited NO original sin thru his mother Mary because she was the immaculate conception.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He is all powerful... and immortal?

2 questions:
1. Is there anything your god can't do? If the answer is "no", then I'ld call that all powerful
2. is your god an eternal being? If the answer is "yes" then I'ld call that immortal

Imagine a son of a kind man steals a chocolate bar, and the father offers to pay, for the bar. Would a reasonable judge accept that? I think so.

There's a problem with your analogy.
God in christianity is also the bar......

So he's really paying himself.
The son stole from his dad, then. The dad could just forgive the son, instead having beaten his other son (who's also himself for some reason) to death.

Also, reasonable judge would accept that, if the son is a 6-year old.
Not so much if it were a 30-year old.

The situations are more equivalent, because what was lost can be restored. Unlike the case you presented.

And the thing that was supposedly lost, is claimed to be lost by the religion itself. I'm not seeing any evidence of that. It's trying to convince me that there's something wrong without demonstrating it, and then conveniently providing the only cure for it. That makes my con-man alarm bells go off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly! How does three days equate to eternal death? It's not actually a sacrifice if He's gonna back His life.

And to top it all of... All that trouble to get "forgiveness" from "the judge". And who's the judge?? God. Who's Jesus somehow. So really, he goes through all that trouble to sacrifice himself to himself, to save us from himself, due to a failed system where we are all damned by default because of a situation he himself is ultimately responsible for anyway...

 

[74x12]

First of all, you still didn't actually answer the question and second of all, you guys all believe that on the new earth or in heaven there will be no suffering or evil yet there will be spiritual growth so it is quite possible for a person to grow spiritually without experiencing suffering or evil.

Well that's like babies in the womb asking why they have hands and feet. For walking and doing things with. But they don't need them at all in the womb. They will need them. But we suffer now so we will be better in the next life. Suffering develops virtue. Which is going to last forever.

Really? I thought God's love and forgiveness was greater than our sins? But I don't think you're understanding my point... my point is that if Jesus' atonement was a perfect payment for my sin debt, then my debt should be forever cleared and I shouldn't have to ask for forgiveness.

I don't follow the logic. He didn't come to pay for your sins. He came to free you from sins. Whoever keeps on sinning is making Jesus die for nothing. So they remain guilty unless they repent.

That's a strawman. Nowhere in my original post did I blame God for anything, you're accusing me of something that I didn't do and also you didn't answer the question.

What can free you from sin? Think about it. The only thing is to be born another person(with a good nature) who doesn't sin. That's why Jesus died and rose from the dead. So you could live a new life in Him. That's resurrection power. That's freedom from sin.

That doesn't actually answer the question as to how it's just for an innocent person to pay for the crimes of a guilty person.

It's because God keeps His Word. when He promised we would die for sins He meant it. But, God still loves everyone so He doesn't want to have to keep His Word. However He certainly will. Therefore, Jesus came in the likeness of men to die in their place and rise from the dead. So He nullifies the effect of death. Because resurrection means you don't stay dead. Therefore it doesn't matter if you die because you will live again. That's how Jesus pays for our sins. He let's us live again. If Jesus didn't come then we would just die and remain dead.

Do you believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit are God?

Of course.

OK they didn't repent but how is it just for an innocent person to pay for a guilty person's sins yet also just if the guilty person pays for their own sins?

If someone doesn't repent they'll pay for it alright. But if Jesus rose from the dead then death is overcome for Him and anyone who is baptized into His body will have the same immortality so long as they continue on with Him and don't resurrect the sins they used to do. Because if you raise the sin back to life you kill the soul and vice versa.

 

[halbhh]

Can Jesus really save anyone? The more I think of the Christian idea of substitutionary atonement the less I'm convinced that Jesus can actually save anyone.

1) if Jesus paid the absolute debt for my sins then why must I ask for forgiveness? If my sins truly have been paid for then I shouldn't need to ask for forgiveness.

2) How does spending three days in Hell or dead, whichever interpretation you hold to, pay for an eternal punishment of death, separation from God or torture? If Jesus were to pay for my sins and take my place, then He should be dead forever, be separated from God forever or be in hell right now being tortured forever but supposedly He's not, so again, how exactly was my eternal punishment paid for?

3) How is it just for an innocent person to pay for the sins of a guilty person? Justice demands that the guilty pay for their own crimes... if an innocent person does so then it's not justice since the person guilty of the crime is not facing the requisite punishment for their actions.

4) If you're a trinitarian, how is it that God through Christ can be separated from Himself or die yet be alive at the same time or face eternal torture yet not face eternal torture at the same time?

5) If substitutionary atonement is the only just way for sins for sins to be paid then why does God punish people for their own sins and how can it be just for a person to pay for their own sins after they're judged by God when only an innocent person can pay for the sins of the guilty and the guilty can't pay for their own sins?

6) If the Fall actually happened then haven't we all already faced our just punishment by being condemned to live on this fallen planet with all the suffering and evil that it has? Why the double jeopardy of hell or everlasting death or separation from God in the afterlife if God already perfectly punished us for our sins in the Garden of Eden?

7) How can Jesus have been fully human and fully God, if being human entailed being a fallen being, with a sinful nature, who's guilty of sins and deserves eternal punishment when Jesus was supposedly a perfect being who was the complete opposite of that? How was Jesus even human at all?

Some of the questions may sound the same but they are not if you read them carefully... will be interested to hear responses, thank you.

It's valuable to know that this particular theory (human guessing) is only one of 3 main theories (the most widespread) to try to explain the mystery of the cross.

Only one theory, of several. The wiki suggests or points to or links the others, such as Christus Victor for example, so you can click through links and read various theories:
Substitutionary atonement - Wikipedia
(also, just in case it's not in there, I suggest also Abelard's theory; ah here it is, if a bit more abstractly than I like perhaps:
Moral influence theory of atonement - Wikipedia
that by contemplating what He did, we are profoundly changed; the reality of what Christ did for us from Love can truly destroy our....evil hardness of heart, and hatred towards God and man which we tend to harbor as grudges and unforgiveness, for example.)

 

[Terry Sampson]

There seem to be several within Christianity.

Which is why I initially considered the OP to be a silly anti-Christian challenge. The OP Challenge, IMO, boils down to this:

• "Convince me that the view of atonement (which I thought was the only one until others told me otherwise) makes sense."

If I, a Christian, believe that Jesus saves but I reject the view of atonement focused on by the OP, what does the challenge want from me?
If the author wants me to convince him that Jesus saves, then the "substitutionary" part is a red herring, and the author needs to confess to complete ignorance other than awareness of some "catch words" he's picked up here and there. His ignorance is a barrier to comprehension, and here I use "ignorance" in a factual, non-pejorative way.
Trying to explain what Jesus saves a person from and how Jesus does it to a person who is clueless about sin and total (or substantial) loss of free will, and--even more importantly--doesn't think he/she needs saving is a exercise in futility, doomed to failure every time.

And I say: No thanks.